Standing Committee A

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Road Safety Bill

New clause 4 - CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY BY NEGLIGENT DRIVING

'(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) is amended as follows. After section 2A (Meaning of dangerous driving) insert— 
''2B Causing death or injury by negligent driving 
(1) A person who causes the death of or serious injury to another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle negligently on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. 
(2) A person is to be regarded as suffering serious injury if he suffers injury that is life changing or life threatening or both. 
2C Meaning of negligent driving 
(1) A person is to be regarded as driving negligently if he drives without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.'' 
(2) The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) is amended as follow is. 
In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert a new entry— 
RTA section 2B 
Causing death or serious injury by negligent driving 
On indictment 
10 years or a fine or both 
Discretionary 
Obligatory 
3-11' 
—[Mr. Stinchcombe.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
Motion made, and Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
Question again proposed.

Peter Pike: Before I call Mr. Chope to resume his speech, I note that several people have indicated that they want to speak on the new clause. I accept that it is important—there is no dispute about that whatever. However, looking at the Order Paper, I see that we are likely to be interrupted by Divisions in the House. If there are Divisions, the 5.30 finish time will not be extended; there is no injury time. We will finish at 5.30, and any new clause that we have not reached will automatically fall. There is one Government amendment, which will be moved formally if we reach that point. Of course, having said that, we may move along at a fairly speedy pace, but I indicate that to the Committee so that Members know the exact position right from the start.

Christopher Chope: That just emphasises the inflexibility of the Government guillotine. We could have had more time to discuss these matters if the scheduling had been dealt with more flexibly. For those members of the Committee who were not present in the Chamber, I put on record the fact that I raised a point of order about the shenanigans of this morning, and, as a result, the  Deputy Speaker reprimanded the Government for their behaviour. I have said enough about that.
We know that the Government produced the document for consultation and that they are not proposing to include legislation on it in the Bill. We know that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who moved the new clause, will withdraw it. Bearing in mind that there are many other new clauses to be debated and that our time will be eaten into by Divisions, I hope that we will be able to curtail the debate on this new clause. I have said all that I need to say on it.

John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough on introducing the new clause and also on his long-running campaign. I confess that I failed to sign his early-day motion. That was a sin of omission on my part, as I had indicated to my colleagues that they should sign it. I most certainly would have signed it if I had not missed it.
I shall confine my remarks simply to saying unequivocally and straightforwardly that the principle of the new clause is right and that the Liberal Democrats will support it. More detail may come out in the consultation, but I am happy to place on the record my support for the principle. There is wide consensus on the issue. It is right that the hon. Gentleman's campaign has succeeded and that the Government have recognised it. There is support from all parts of the House—even the odd Conservative, I believe—and we look forward to the new clause becoming law. 
Before I sit down, I would like to make a brief comment about the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He may well have a bone to pick with the Home Office. The timing is less than convenient, and it is probably right that the Deputy Speaker issued a reprimand. Perhaps the Government have been clumsy, even ham-fisted—who knows? It would not be the first time that that has happened in government. However, I simply do not buy the conspiracy theory. I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman's long experience as a Minister, that he would be well aware that the vast majority of such things can be ascribed to the cock-up, rather than the conspiracy, theory. His lack of support for the measure is surprising, and, considering who was present, somewhat distasteful. His remarks about 6 May would be funny if they were not so sadly delusional.

Liam Byrne: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). This is not a new debate. Indeed, my first debate in Westminster Hall after I was elected was on road safety. Many of these issues were raised as long ago as last September, and it was clear to me then that the matter had been debated for some time and that there was an emerging consensus on it. I, too, was surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch, because he had an opportunity to discuss such matters then, yet Hansard shows that he did not do so. 
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough that the new clause has the support of many people not only in his constituency but in mine. I was proud to sign his early-day motion. The proposal has the support also of readers of the Birmingham Evening Mail and wide support across the city of Birmingham. My introduction to this debate was hard. A month after my election, Josh Berill was hit and killed on Burney lane in Washwood Heath. He was two years old, the same age as my middle boy. He was hit by a car that accelerated when it hit him, and he was dragged 200 yd down the road before the car stopped. It shocked not only the constituency that I represent, but people across Birmingham. 
After the shock came the anger, because Josh Berill was not the first child to be killed on Burney lane; he was the second. It was not the first accident but the seventh in five years. It was no longer a quiet residential road; it had become a race track. As I spent more and more time on the case, my admiration, like that of many others in the city, grew for Josh's family, Nona Robinson and Thomas Gordon. They had three simple questions for me. How do we make sure that it never happens again? How do we make sure that justice is done? How do we guarantee that from Josh's death—from that tragedy—some good comes? 
It is vital to recognise credit where credit is due. I pay credit to the Minister, who has contributed so much to the cause of road safety not just throughout the country but in Birmingham. The number of deaths and serious injuries each year on the roads in Birmingham has fallen from 775 to 525. That is a full 30 per cent. decrease. The number of children hurt or killed has fallen from 151 to 83. That is already a fall of 45 per cent.—much better than the reduction of one third recorded nationally. That substantial progress is in no small part down to the investment that this Bill will make more possible. The Minister has been instrumental in ensuring that that investment arrives in Hodge Hill. He inaugurated the inner-city road safety demonstration project, which is worth £6 million. It cut road deaths in Gloucester by 38 per cent., and we look forward to similar results in Birmingham. 
Although we have closed the investment gap, we have not yet closed the justice gap, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough made clear. It still looms large. When we debated the issue last summer in the House, I was shocked as a new MP to hear example after example of drivers who had killed innocent people walking off with no more severe a penalty than six points on their licence and a £150 to £300 fine. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), who does not serve on this Committee, said that the burden of proving that driving is dangerous is so heavy that all too often careless driving is the charge that is pressed, and it is pressed not in a Crown court but in a magistrates court. As a community, we are forced to stand by and watch the indignity of those courts handing down completely inadequate sentences. 
When the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross spoke in the debate last September, he made a powerful point. He said that the number of deaths and serious injuries was 
''equivalent to a Hatfield and Potters Bar''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, Tuesday 7 September 2004; Vol. 12, c. 3WH.]
rail crash every single day. 
The most dangerous drivers are serial potential killers. Some 46 per cent. of those convicted of dangerous driving have been convicted on not one, not two, but three previous occasions. Some 56 per cent. of offenders with three or more offences go on to commit a fourth. It is that justice gap that is greatest of all, and it is a justice gap that is worst in our poorest communities. The fact is that a child from a less privileged community is five times more likely to be hit and hurt by a car. In a city such as Birmingham, that means a child every week. People in my constituency want their neighbourhoods back, and we want that justice gap closed. The truth is that crime hits hardest the young and the old. The seven accidents on Burney lane have involved either toddlers, teenagers or pensioners—often the most valuable and the most vulnerable in society. 
Everything that we have achieved as a country has one simple root: the idea that nobody is above the law. Today, justice is not being done; supporting the principle of the new clause is our opportunity to take a step forward. I promised Josh's family that I would do everything in my power to see that justice is done for them, and so I look to the Minister to accept this vital step forward or to give us the assurance that we need that, if not in this Bill, in another soon to arrive, we will end this scandal and give our communities the laws that they deserve.

Louise Ellman: The new clause was tabled to ensure that loss of life and serious injury on the roads are treated with the same concern that is shown for loss of life and serious injury inflicted by other means. It is a major issue and a human one. It is filled with anguish. As we all know, every day about 10 people die on our roads and about 90 are seriously injured. In the wake of those incidents are left ruined lives as a result of bereavement or serious injury.
As several hon. Members have said, the issues have been long running. The Select Committee on Transport considered the matter in its report ''Traffic Law and its Enforcement'', published on 13 October 2004. The Select Committee took evidence from a number of individuals and organisations, including RoadPeace, which spoke for the bereaved and those affected tragically by death and accidents on the roads. We also spoke to the police, who gave evidence too. We accepted that there were undoubtedly instances in which death and injury were caused by tragic momentary errors. However, there were many other cases where the system let down the bereaved and their families. 
The issues that arose and that were drawn to our attention covered a range of matters. The specific sentencing issue that the new clause addresses is related to the question of assessing and gathering  evidence at the scene of an accident. Concern was expressed that sometimes there is an overriding wish to get the traffic moving again, rather than to collect the necessary forensic evidence to enable a proper charge to be brought. Concerns were expressed about the inadequacy of the charges brought—about the Crown Prosecution Service's bringing charges of careless driving when more serious charges should be brought in the circumstances. 
There are problems relating to the inadequacy of the records kept on what happens to cases in which people have been killed or seriously injured on the roads. We are talking about three sets of statistics: collision statistics, court statistics and information from the CPS. Even now, those figures and that information are not properly collated. There are derisory sentences, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friends, and sometimes there is a lack of proper concern for bereaved families and inadequate contact with them. 
On the question of sentencing, I can do no more than quote the evidence given to the Select Committee, not by members of a bereaved family but by the police, and in particular by Sergeant Pattison of Northumbria police, who stated: 
''The obscenity of the present restriction is that if one driver punched the other and caused, say a broken nose (assault occasioning actually bodily harm), the offender could be sentenced to five years imprisonment or, if the driver deliberately or recklessly damaged the other driver's motor vehicle and was charged with criminal damage, a maximum of ten years imprisonment could be imposed, or where life was endangered, life imprisonment. Yet when guilty of dangerous driving and grievous life threatening injuries are concerned, the maximum available to the Judge, is two years imprisonment.''
That statement from the police is just one indication of the grave injustice that has been done for so long. 
The Select Committee called for a new offence to be created: that of causing death or serious injury by negligent driving. It also called for the Halliday report to be published. I am delighted that today we have the consultation document arising from the review of the situation. Unlike Opposition Members, I am pleased that it has been published now; it is extremely timely. 
I was particularly pleased to see that there are two major measures proposed in the report that go a long way towards meeting the concerns of the Transport Committee, and they are reflected in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. The proposal for a maximum custodial penalty of five years for the new offence of causing death by careless driving would clearly not be imposed in every case, or even most cases, but the new clause would make that maximum penalty available. In addition, the consultation document suggested that the court should be required to take account when sentencing of the consequences of bad driving offences, including the inflicting of injuries. Those two proposals address the main concerns of the Committee. 
I am pleased that the Government are responding to those concerns. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the timely action that he has taken in pursuing the matter in the way that he has. He has focused the minds of Ministers on an issue that has been of long-term concern. Through his diligence and in trying to bring some kind of justice to the family of Alexine Melnik, he has been able to bring about the publication of the document containing the proposals for a change in sentencing. 
I hope that the Minister will assure us that, although the document has come from the Home Office, he will be able to support the general trend of the proposals, so that at long last sentencing recognises the impact of death on the roads and the serious injuries inflicted.

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough on bringing the matter before the Committee, and on the consistent and persistent way he has advanced the issues and created debate inside and outside this House in pursuit of the interests of his constituents. It is a model of how a good constituency Member of Parliament can advance such issues on behalf of their constituents.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of casualties on our roads, as have a number of Members. I have said it before but I shall say it again that the record of this country bears good comparison with any other in the world. We have one of the best records in this area. None the less, it is a fact that 270 children—the number of pupils in a medium-sized primary school—and about 3,500 people altogether are killed each year on our roads. The good news is that the number of serious injuries on our roads, particularly of children, is falling very rapidly owing to an accumulation of measures taken over the past 30 years by Governments who have taken such issues very seriously. 
Before I come to the substance of an otherwise good and constructive debate, I want to say that it was completely sullied by the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch. At the beginning of his contribution, he talked about having some consensus on these matters, but he went on to make the most non-consensual speech that I have heard in a long time, complaining about something that does not directly concern the Committee: a Home Office document that came out today. 
Last week, the hon. Gentleman asked when the report was coming out, and I told him that I did not know. That was the truth; I did not know. He and other Committee members must know me well enough by now. Had I known, I would have told him. I had no reason to say otherwise. I did not know that the document was coming out until yesterday morning, and I did not see a copy of it until this morning. My Department had been consulted about it, but I had not seen the final document. 
There are two things going on here. My Department is responsible for road safety policy; offences are a matter for the Home Office. Over the past four years, since I have been doing my job, my  officials and I, along with many others in the House, such as PACTS, which has been very good, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who has helped, have been putting together a number of issues that we thought would be good candidates for a road safety Bill. That Bill is now in front of us. We have here many measures that I think we agree across the Committee are good measures. We have put the measures together, we have put them in a Bill, we have put them to the House, and I think that we agree on the vast majority of them. 
At the same time, because of other campaigning, some people felt that we did not necessarily need new offences, but that we needed to adjust the penalty for the existing ones. So the work in my Department on the Bill was in parallel with a review of the offences. The Home Office employed Mr. Halliday to look at the offences and to collect opinions and views for an internal report, which has today been put into a consultation paper. That process has been going on for two and a half years. Work on this Bill has been going on for four years. Coincidentally, the two things have come together. 
The consultation document does not affect anything that we are doing in the Bill. The hon. Member for Christchurch said, ''Well, if we had known this earlier in the week, we would have tabled some amendments.'' How ridiculous. It will be several weeks before we receive people's views on the consultation paper, and then a Bill will come not through my Department but through the Home Office. To say that after 48 hours we should pre-empt responses to the consultation document and table an amendment is quite ludicrous. On mature reflection, the hon. Gentleman will realise that.

David Wilshire: The Minister has just put on the record that he did not see the paper until yesterday. Will he clarify whether he means that he did not see a version of the printed copy until yesterday, or whether he had not seen the contents presented in some other form? The approval of his Department is on the back of the document. If the Minister did not agree the contents on behalf of his Department, who did?

David Jamieson: I did not see the final version until yesterday. Our Department will have been aware of the contents, as we and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have been working together and talking to each other about the contents. However, I had not seen the paper until yesterday morning.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: I will, although I want to make some progress. We have wasted enough time on this matter already.

David Wilshire: This is not a waste of time; there is a matter of principle about Government responsibility for their own publications. Will the Minister tell us whether the document was issued with the approval of a Minister in his Department?

David Jamieson: I was aware of the document, and we wrote internally to the Domestic Affairs Committee to say that we were content with what was in it.

David Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: I do not know if we want to pursue this any further. The question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch was whether I was aware of the date that the document was to be published. No I was not, because it was not in my gift to publish it. That was in the gift of the Home Office. I will give way once more.

David Wilshire: The Minister has said that ''we'' were aware. I will press him again: will he please clarify what he means by ''we''? Was the document seen and approved by a Minister, or is he using the word collectively to mean that approval was given by some official?

David Jamieson: As a Department, ministerial clearance was given for our approval of the document.

David Wilshire: By whom?

David Jamieson: By the Secretary of State. The final version of the paper is in front of us, but that is a separate matter. Over coming weeks there will be careful consultation over the paper's contents, but that will not in any way affect the Bill before us. There will be a separate Bill, dealing with entirely different matters. We are dealing almost entirely with the penalties, not with the offences. The consultation paper deals with the offences and not the penalties.
Turning to the serious issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, I am only too aware, from my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, from the correspondence that the Department receives, and from the representations that we receive from hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others, how desperately angry many people feel when they have lost a member of their family or a cherished friend in a road accident, or even when such a person has been seriously injured. It is a painful and hurtful experience and it lasts for a long time. 
The family's grief is often made worse because they feel that the court has not treated the offence with the seriousness that it should have done, that the penalty that was handed out was not sufficiently serious or, if the person feels guilty and there was no hearing, because they feel angry that the witnesses did not have their chance to say their bit in court to ventilate some of the issues. They feel that there has been no place in which to hear the issues and they feel aggrieved by that. I understand that feeling. That is why the report tackles many of the issues to do with the penalties attracted by certain offences. It is imperative that the criminal law is fully effective in dealing with and addressing all forms of bad driving that have the all too appalling consequences that several Members have mentioned. 
However, this is a sensitive area of law that involves difficult issues. Therefore, it is essential— 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Peter Pike: Before I call the Minister, I want to make a ruling. Because I have responsibility to see this agenda through, any further reference to the consultation document must be directly relevant to the new clause that we are debating. I am not saying that it is not related, but it must be raised only on issues related directly to what we are debating in the new clause.

David Jamieson: Thank you for that, Mr. Pike. As I was saying, this is a sensitive area of the law that involves some difficult issues, so it is essential that the introduction of the offences set out in the document, as proposed, is considered against the full background of a wider framework of offences and penalties in the criminal law. The issues raised in the new clause are adequately covered in the document—which I think Committee members have now seen—as are many other offences. The Home Office is developing new offences, rather than new penalties. It is right and proper for that now to take its course, and for the Home Office to take appropriate action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Liam Byrne)—who, during his short time in this House, has been proving himself to be a quiet but highly effective and determined Member of Parliament—has already raised a number of constituency issues relating to the penalties imposed on people for these offences. I congratulate him on the work that he has done. He also referred to the inner-city road safety project. I visited his constituents to launch that project before he was a Member of Parliament, and picked up on the concerns from parents there about the level of penalties that people were getting for certain offences. I wish my hon. Friend well in his endeavours in his constituency. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has a long-standing interest in these issues, and I am well aware of the excellent contribution that she has made through the Select Committee on Transport, which, quite rightly, had a lot to say about these issues. 
We are deeply sympathetic to the new clause, but the time is not far away when the Government as a whole, through the Home Office, can deal with some of these issues. There is now a serious intent to do that, and I hope the motion will be withdrawn, so that we may come back and tackle the matters with a vengeance sometime in the next few months.

Paul Stinchcombe: With one notable exception, it has been a very good and positive debate. I wish to put on record my thanks for the support that I have received from Liberal Democrat Members, from Labour Back Benchers and from the Minister. I can also record that we have received yet more public support. The postman arrived while we were here this morning—and I have another 200 positive responses in support of this new clause. I dare say that those 200 people will feel insulted by the comments made by the hon. Member for Christchurch.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Stinchcombe: Yes.

Greg Knight: Perhaps I am looking too far into the future. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that legislation by reflection is better than legislation by postcard? In the consultation process that is taking place, we need to reflect on the views of the experts and those who are looking at the wider framework of penalties, not just on the views of those who are angry and emotional.

Paul Stinchcombe: Of course we need to legislate with mature reflection. The issue has been debated on numerous occasions and considered by many people, not least by the Transport Committee. I believe that the Committee's report was unanimously agreed to. At any rate, it was agreed to by Conservative Members.
I thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Christchurch not only demonstrated a lack of grace, but was a disgrace. He effectively accused my constituent and I, and perhaps my Front-Bench colleagues, of a party political carve-up. Mr. Melnik, who heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, said to me afterwards that he felt that, after six months of grief, he had been given a slap in the face. Mr. Melnik did not spend his Christmas celebrating the festivities, which took place just a few months after his daughter died; he spent it printing out and signing letters to every Member of Parliament, including every Conservative Member. 
When I tabled my early-day motion, I did not say that Members could sign it only if they were Labour, Liberal, a nationalist or from Ulster. It was not a Conservative-free zone. There is no room in grief for ideology and there should not have been any room for party politics in the debate. The simple fact is that there is a gaping hole in the law. Mine was a legitimate attempt to try to fill it. A better way forward has been signalled by the Home Office in its timely report.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that residents of Burney lane will be joining me this evening to present a petition to the House of Commons in support of the principle.

Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful to hear that, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support and for his campaigning on the issue in his constituency and in Parliament. The simple truth is that the measure is neither a conspiracy nor a carve-up. Mr. Melnik is not a party member and he is not a conspirator. He is a grieving dad. I suggest that it says something rather deep about Conservative Members that they cannot imagine that sometimes people campaign for the right thing for the right reason.

Christopher Chope: Since the hon. Gentleman went out of his way to try to insult me, I simply say that it is regrettable that the Halliday review took two and a half years to report. If the report had been dealt with more quickly, the recommendations from that report could have been included in the Bill. That is not now possible because of the timing of the report. It means that the change in the law that the hon. Gentleman wants will not be made until a year or more from now. 
The hon. Gentleman has not addressed the point about penalties in the appendix to the report. He knows that the previous Home Secretary was against locking up more motorists; he thought that there were already too many motorists in prison. The proposal was that another 800 a year be put in prison. I do not believe, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any reason to believe, that his Government are committed to achieving that. This is an exercise in trying to allay concerns without making any firm, unequivocal commitment.

Paul Stinchcombe: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 7 - National speed limit for villages

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a national speed limit of 30 m.p.h for motor vehicles in villages. 
(2) An instrument pursuant to subsection (1) shall be made not later than twelve months after this Act has received Royal Assent. 
(3) For the purposes of this section, ''village'' means a settlement of 20 or more dwellings situated along not less than 600 metres of any highway.'.—[John Thurso.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

John Thurso: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). It seeks to make a 30 mph speed limit for villages and settlements statutory. I will give a brief explanation of the clause. Subsection (1) says: 
''The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a national speed limit of 30 m.p.h for motor vehicles in villages.''
Subsection (2) gives a time scale of 
''not later than twelve months'',
and subsection (3) sets out a definition of a village as 
''a settlement of 20 or more dwellings situated along not less than 600 metres of any highway.''
At the outset, I say that I am grateful to the Campaign to Protect Rural England for having brought the matter to my attention and giving me a brief. I see the new clause as a part of an overall road strategy, and particularly as a strategy for developing a clearer road hierarchy. I have often spoken during our debates about the difference between those of our roads that are clearly engineered and designed for use by the motor car at speed—the obvious examples of that are the motorway and the dual carriageway—and those roads that are not so engineered. 
Many villages have narrow roads with mixed use, where pedestrians and other road users are in potential conflict with the motorist. As a principle, I have always sought not necessarily to slow traffic down or say to the motorist, ''Do not go fast unless the road is properly engineered'', but to focus on those areas where we can legislate in a way that has regard to that mixed use of the road. That is why I believe passionately that enforcement in 20, 30 and 40 mph zones is so important. 
The Government could and should consider this matter, and they are already committed to do so because the road safety strategy published in 2000 included two specific commitments for rural areas. First, it stated that 30 mph should be the normal speed limit for villages, and secondly, it included a commitment to develop a road hierarchy that would update the current road classification. I think that it was the Prime Minister who, in launching the strategy in March 2000, made the commitment, welcomed at the time, that 30 mph should be the normal speed limit for villages. 
The three-year review of the road safety strategy concluded that those commitments were being successfully delivered, and its conclusions established the policy that 30 mph should be the norm for villages. Although that has been restated, I am not sure that the necessary progress has taken place, and no deadline has been set for achievement of the Government's aspiration. 
Although there is clearly some difficulty with regard to the definition of ''village'', the definition included in the new clause is satisfactory. We know that 60 per cent. of road accidents take place in rural areas—many fatalities occur on rural roads—and over 50 per cent. of accidents take place in areas where there is a 30 or 40 mph speed limit; those two points are juxtaposed. It would be sensible for us to consider a 30 mph limit for villages. 
The new clause cannot be considered in any way to be anti-motorist. I think that it is pro-motorist because, as a motorist myself, when travelling in rural areas in my constituency I find a number of villages with no speed limit, as well as some that have a limit of 40 mph and some with a limit of 30 mph. It would be useful to know that every village had a clearly defined 30 mph speed limit; it would be a reassuring measure for drivers, rather than an anti-motorist one. I commend the new clause to the Committee and I hope, albeit without too much optimism, that the Government will look favourably on it. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has performed a useful service in tabling the new clause, if only so that we can look at it and dismiss it. It is not anti-motorist, but it is impractical because it is too inflexible. Many villages would support the imposition of a 30 mph speed limit, but many others would take the opposite view. That is why I cannot support his blanket approach.
To give an example, I used to live many years ago in the village of Thurmaston, Leicestershire, which has been bisected by a dual carriageway that runs straight through the village. There is a pedestrian over-bridge and a pedestrian subway and, I believe, fencing on both sides of the road. As far as I am aware, there is no public wish for the speed limit on the road to be reduced to 30 mph. 
The A1 runs through several villages, not all of which have a 30 mph limit. Considering the proximity of houses to the carriageway of the A1, there is a good reason for not having a 30 mph limit in force. I hope that the Minister will say that the hon. Gentleman's approach would be too inflexible, because that is certainly the conclusion that I have reached. 
There may be a case for examining the inconsistency of speed limits across the UK. I for one would favour a speed limit audit by the Government to determine what local authorities are doing in different parts of the country, and publication of the findings. If that has been done, I am not aware of it, or, if it is under way, I would like to hear of it. If it has still to be done, perhaps we should do it.

Charlotte Atkins: I certainly understand the concerns that give rise to the new clause. I represent a rural constituency with many villages that are clamouring for a 30 mph speed limit. However, there is no need for the new clause, simply because local authorities already have the sole responsibility for introducing speed limits on their roads. I appreciate that many local authorities do not decide on a 30 mph speed limit in a particular village—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's point about an audit is appropriate—but it is very much down to them to make the decision on the basis of local circumstances. I appreciate that there ought to be flexibility. Local authorities may choose a speed limit from 20 to 70 mph without the need for any authorisation from the Department or the Secretary of State.
The definition of ''village'' in the new clause is the same as the definition that the Department for Transport adopts in its traffic advisory leaflet, issued in January 2004. Obviously, great minds think alike, so there is no problem with that. The issue is whether the local authority, and indeed the village itself, wants a 30 mph speed limit. In my experience, most villages do. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), assisted me with a campaign for a village. As a result, we now have a dozen speed cameras—perhaps it is a little over the top—along a road through three villages to ensure that 30, 40 and 50 mph speed limits are observed. The villages are protected by speed cameras.

David Kidney: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned speed cameras, as I find that local authorities with backing from the police are often reluctant to agree to 30 mph speed limits. They are concerned about enforcement. If I mention speed cameras, they say that the strict guidance from the Department prevents them from installing them. Is there support in the Department for vehicle-activated signs, which would at least warn drivers that they are approaching a 30 mph limit area and that they should slow down?

Charlotte Atkins: Indeed, there is support for vehicle-activated signs. Wetley Rocks, the village that I mentioned, had a vehicle-activated sign, but still, in a  tragic week, three people were killed in two separate accidents in the area of the village. The village therefore moved to speed cameras, but with the expert advice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I managed to convince the county council that in fact they had flexibility, within 15 per cent. of their overall budget for speed cameras, to introduce them along that stretch of road. The legislation already allows for that to happen.
We are sympathetic to the point about having 30 mph speed limits in rural areas, but it must be a decision for the village and the local authority. Obviously, some villages are in areas where motorists would probably think that a 30 mph limit was inappropriate. In that situation, there is a difficulty in persuading drivers to abide by that limit. 
The advisory leaflet not only makes it clear that the norm for a village should be 30 mph, it lays down a host of guidance about vehicle-activated signs, 20 mph zones, and the use of traffic islands, gateways and different markings. The advice exists and I urge local authorities to use it. They should also take advice on speed cameras. That would demonstrate that rural areas have as much right as urban areas to have a speed limit to protect their residents. They have got the support of the Department. I urge the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to withdraw the motion.

Christopher Chope: I had not intended to participate in the debate, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross have missed the main point, which is surely that all drivers should be driving at the speed that is appropriate in the circumstances. The village where I live used to have the national speed limit, although most people drove at about 20 mph because the road was single track and there were bends. If we impose a speed limit that is not regarded as the maximum in ideal circumstances, it will not command respect.
In the less populated rural areas, in particular, it is surely important that all motorists go at an appropriate speed. During the day, when there are children around, that speed may be different from what it would be at the night time or during the early hours of a summer morning. I am worried that there would be speed limit signs in every village in the countryside and that they would add to the rural clutter instead of reinforcing the message that too many people are driving too fast in particular circumstances, in relation to their own safety and the safety of others. That is what is emphasised in the highway code. 
Too many people think that they should drive up to the speed limit. To finish my example, a blanket 40 mph speed limit zone was introduced in the whole of the New Forest, but that was too fast for our village, so another limitation on driving in our village had to be introduced, because it seemed implicit that people would drive at 40 mph. Surely, without the need for a lot of clutter and a lot more regulation, we should re-emphasise the need for people to drive at an  appropriate speed, irrespective of what the speed limit sign says.

Charlotte Atkins: That is why the Department leaves it to the local authority to decide the appropriate speed limit. That seems perfectly consistent with ensuring that the speed limit reflects local circumstances and conditions.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate. I am even grateful that I enticed the hon. Member for Christchurch to his feet. It proves the old angling adage: if you fish where the fish are and use the right fly, you will usually catch one.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for his supportive dismissal, or dismissive support—whichever it was. If my understanding of the new clause and the advice that I have been given is correct, the circumstance that he puts forward would be exempt because of the way in which the new clause is worded. Clearly, it is not aimed at stopping the operation of a dual carriageway that happens to pass through a village, where the engineering has been undertaken in such a way that the pedestrian is protected. That would be ridiculous. Neither I, nor the Campaign to Protect Rural England, want to do that. 
The specific case that concerns us is those villages—I am delighted that the Minister spotted where my definition of a village came from—in which there is no speed limit, which is the situation in many rural areas of the United Kingdom. There may or may not be the odd street light. There is one example in my constituency, where, because there is no speed limit, people take the view that 60 mph is the appropriate limit. The argument used by the hon. Member for Christchurch is turned on itself because when people do not see a limit, they assume that there is no limit, so they go at 60 mph. I agree with him that good motorists should use appropriate speed, but sadly not all motorists do. The fact that we have a hierarchy of speed limits means that people look for the guidance that they offer. 
I am sorry that the new clause has not found favour with the Government, as it would be helpful. I hope that we can keep the situation under review, and perhaps the Government will continue to consider the measure. It would be a useful addition to the Bill. I am sure that there is a consensus that safety and the cutting of speed in rural areas is as important as anywhere else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion, and clause, by leave withdrawn.

New clause 8 - POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS

'(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossing Act 1983 (which enables the Secretary of State to make orders as to safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a), omit ''and'' and insert— 
''(aa) may impose requirements on any relevant traffic authority as to the provision, maintenance or operation of any such barriers or other protective equipment, including the maintenance or operation of equipment provided before the making of the order; and.'' 
(3) In subsection (6)— 
(a) for ''the operator and to each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated'' substitute— 
''(a) the operator; 
(b) each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated; and 
(c) in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned,''; and 
(b) for ''or local authority'' substitute '', local authority or relevant traffic authority''. 
(4) In subsection (8)— 
(a) after ''situated'' insert ''and, in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned''; and 
(b) in paragraph (b), after ''local authority'' insert ''or the relevant traffic authority concerned''. 
(5) In subsection (11) (interpretation)— 
(a) in the definition of ''protective equipment'', after ''television equipment'', insert '', prescribed device within the meaning of section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (devices for detection of road traffic offences),'' 
(b) after the definition of ''protective equipment'' insert—'' 'relevant traffic authority' means a traffic authority in whose area all or part of the level crossing in question is or is proposed to be situated or any barriers or other protective equipment in question is or are situated or is or are proposed to be situated;'' and 
(c) after the definition of ''road'' insert—'' 'road traffic authority' has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984''. 
(6) This section applies in relation to barriers and other protective equipment provided before, as well as after, this section comes into force.'. 
—[John Thurso] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

John Thurso: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 10—Increase of penalties for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings—
'(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 consisting of a failure to comply with a traffic sign placed at or near a level crossing indicating that vehicular traffic is not to proceed over the level crossing shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with six penalty points. 
(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'. 
New clause 11—Increase of penalties for careless or inconsiderate driving causing damage to a railway or other bridge over a road— 
'(1) A person who causes damage to a railway or other bridge over a road by driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and shall have his licence endorsed with not fewer than six penalty points. 
(2) This section applies in relation to offences committed after the date on which this Act comes into force.'. 
New clause 12—Measures to promote road safety at railway and other bridges— 
'In section 122(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (which sets out the matters to which local authorities must have regard in exercising their functions under that Act), after paragraph (c) insert— 
''(ca) the need to remove the risk of heavy commercial and other vehicles from colliding with railway and other bridges crossing highways by installing warning devices and physical barriers on the highways approaching such bridges;''.'. 
Amendment No. 40, in title, line 2, at end insert— 
'and for related purposes concerning road safety.'.

John Thurso: We now move curiously from the road to the rail, and, more exactly, the interface between rail and road. We all remember the tragedy that took place at Ufton Nervet rail crossing, which was one of many incidents that take place at level crossings each year, the vast majority of which do not end up with the tragic loss of life that occurred in that incident.
I was approached by Network Rail. The new clauses and the amendment have been drafted by Network Rail, so they have a competence way beyond that to which I could ever aspire. I hope that instils some confidence in Committee members about the quality of the proposals. The principles are complex. I could spend time going through the detail, but I should like to address them so that we can make progress.

David Kidney: On the confidence that we may have in Network Rail, it sent me comments that it received from the Health and Safety Executive, suggesting that the new clauses should be amended. Hon. Members should be aware that we cannot rely on them.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me because I have the exact same letter. Network Rail sent all members of the Committee comments on the proposals. The HSE would like some amendments, not because of the technical quality of the proposals, but because of how it wants them to work. If, by some miracle of legislation, the Committee were to accept the new clauses, another place would have to tidy them up, as it tends to do from time to time.
The principles revolve around two matters. First, level crossings are safe when used properly. However, the new clauses suggest several changes that could enhance their safety. We always think of accidents at rail crossing as being entirely a rail matter, but they are not. They are very often a road matter, and most certainly an interface matter. It is appropriate that some duties be placed on traffic authorities. Secondly, some of the proposals also deal with what are known in the trade as ''bridge bashes''. There are significant problems for the railway system when most vehicles strike railway bridges because, each time a bridge is struck, a hazard is created and passengers are delayed, as trains have to be slowed or halted until engineers have checked the safety of the bridge. 
New clause 8 would give the power to impose requirements on traffic authorities regarding  protective equipment at level crossings. The critical point is made in subsection (2), which introduces ''relevant traffic authority'', instead of the local authority and Network Rail, and that is repeated throughout the new clause, putting a duty on traffic authorities to become involved. 
New clause 10 would increase the penalties to a term not exceeding six months or a fine at level 5 for failure to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I particularly support that because, during the summer recess, I spent some time with the British Transport police at one of the level crossings in Dingwall in the highlands and observed at first hand the operation of the camera. It was frightening to discover that the assessment made prior to the camera being installed was, if I recall correctly—although I may have got the numbers slightly wrong—an estimated 70 incidents of cars crossing on red throughout the highland area. Following the introduction of cameras, that number has been revised to something like 700. The problem is that people know there are around 23 seconds between the light changing and the train coming, and locals who know that tend to take more risks when crossing. There is a need for greater enforcement. 
New clause 11 would increase the penalties for inconsiderate careless driving that causes damage to a railway bridge. New clause 12 would introduce measures to promote road safety at rail, and other, bridges. 
The new clauses, while long and a little complex, are straightforward in principle. I am realistic. I am aware that the Government will not welcome them with open arms, but I hope that they would at least consider what they contain, together with the suggested changes put forward by the Health and Safety Executive, which is broadly content with the new clauses. Perhaps the Government will consider adopting some or all of them at a later stage. 
The last in the group is amendment No. 40, with which I need not detain the Committee for long. It just so happened that, when I sought to table an amendment on another matter, the Clerks pointed out to me that the long title of the Bill did not include the words ''road safety''. I could not, therefore, table that amendment. So I now hope to amend the long title to include: 
''and for related purposes concerning road safety''.
Funnily enough, the new clauses relating to the rail network would need that stipulation. No doubt the Minister can say why the Road Safety Bill's long title does not contain its short title.

Greg Knight: I applaud and support the motive of the hon. Gentleman in tabling the new clauses, but I am afraid, as in the previous debate, he has not convinced me that it is necessary to put his proposals on the face of the Bill or to make the changes in the way he has suggested.
It is worth repeating that safety on our railways is among the highest in the world. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged as much when he said that, when there is an interface between road and rail, more often than not it is a road accident that involves a railway vehicle, and not the other way around. We need to ensure that  motorists are constantly reminded of the danger of crossing a rail track when warning lights are flashing, and most authorities are alert to the need for action with road markings and signage. My local authority certainly is. At most, if not all, level crossings with a traffic light system, there are cameras as well. The authorities, quite rightly, regularly prosecute motorists who skip through the lights and over a junction. 
I am not sure that what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do is either necessary or the correct way forward. He seeks to increase penalties for failing to comply with traffic lights at level crossings. I am unsure why he wants to elevate the offence of disobeying a traffic signal at a level crossing above that of disobeying any other traffic signal. To me, those are serious offences. If someone is injured as a result of a driver skipping a light at a level crossing, why should he be dealt with more severely than he would be if he injured the same person when they happened to be driving home in a car rather than being on a train? I do not support new clause 10. 
With new clause 11, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman again failed to take me with him. There are many other cases where one could perhaps argue that the penalty should be increased if a motorist falls below the duty of care and the standards of driving that we expect. What about a motorist who hit a listed building, or the wall of a dwelling when it was occupied, or the side of a courthouse when a court case was in progress? I do not see the logic of singling out particular circumstances as he has done. 
Turning to new clause 12, I can tell the Committee of a fairly recent case in East Yorkshire where two HGVs—both, on the face of it, travelling too fast—collided at the top of a road bridge going over a railway near the town of Howden. Luckily, no trains were involved in the incident. However, the authorities felt so concerned that the two vehicles had crashed at the top of that narrow, steeply inclined bridge that they immediately placed concrete blocks on either side of the carriageway and reduced the traffic to a single flow, controlled by temporary traffic lights. I accordingly made representations to the Government that it was a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It was causing massive delays in summer for people seeking to take their holiday in Bridlington. That is the main route into Bridlington—I encourage anyone wishing to holiday in the UK to do so in that marvellous seaside resort. 
That action was clearly causing unnecessary delays, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to representations; those were made by the local authority, not just by myself. The Government have decided to remove the risk of heavy commercial or other vehicles from colliding, as mentioned in new clause 12, by providing the money to widen the bridge. The carriageway is now safe for two heavy goods vehicles to cross the bridge, without the risk of them colliding being as great as it was. 
Although I applaud the sentiment behind these new clauses, I am not convinced that they are necessary or desirable.

Charlotte Atkins: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, but I will not be recommending that the Committee accept the new clauses. Taking new clause 8 first, I can tell hon. Members that the Secretary of State already has powers under the Level Crossings Act 1983 to provide for the protection of those using a level crossing, and to specify the protective equipment to be provided. That would include traffic lights, television equipment and so on. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has alerted us to something that we may already have been aware of, but it is important to debate it. There is clearly a lack of interface between the traffic authorities and the railway. Despite the fact that Network Rail has direct access to the Department for Transport, it felt that, for some reason, it had to draft the new clauses.
The traffic authorities already have powers under the Highways Act 1980 to provide structures and equipment for the detection of traffic offences. That would obviously include cameras to detect motorists who jump red lights. I am absolutely appalled that someone would risk their life by jumping a red light to save 23 seconds. I am flabbergasted that anyone would do that. I believe that we have video or photographic evidence of someone doing that with two children in the back of the car. I cannot believe that anyone would want to do that, but people do. The problem is that it is difficult to legislate for people who do what would, in most people's eyes, be completely mad. 
As I said, traffic authorities can put up traffic signs. They can convey all sorts of warnings and, in general, they do. The existing powers are broad enough to include most of the devices that have been suggested to improve the proper use of level crossings. 
The new clause would also transfer responsibility for the level crossing from the railway to the traffic authority. That would make the traffic authority responsible for, and give it control over, the highway across the level crossing. It would require it to be responsible for the effects of the operation of a system over which it has no control, because it is the railway signalling system that instigates the operation of warning devices and barriers, and the traffic authority has no control over that. I appreciate that there may be a problem about sufficient warning devices, but the new clause would create an additional problem.

David Kidney: I mentioned earlier the response of the Health and Safety Executive. It says that something valuable could come out of new clause 8, in that it could extend its powers to make level crossing orders to include highway authorities. It says that that is what happens in Northern Ireland, where each party's responsibility can clearly be specified whereas, in England and Wales, all it can do is ask the operator to seek the co-operation of the highways authority. Some benefit could come from something along those lines.

Charlotte Atkins: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some good could come of that, because there is a lack of interface which we need to address. Introducing legislation is not necessarily the way  forward, because it is often ignored, but doing something such as that would make considerable sense.
New clause 10 would raise the penalty in question to up to 6 months' imprisonment and a level 5 fine of £5,000, compared to a level 3 fine of about £1,000. It would also allow an alternative endorsement of six points rather than three. I appreciate the seriousness of the offence, and I understand why people want to underline that seriousness by ensuring that there is a heavier fine and possible imprisonment. However, there are difficulties with picking out the offence for special treatment. Many other offences—for example, ignoring a pedestrian crossing sign—could also lead to dire consequences. Going through a red light at a busy junction could create absolute mayhem. We must consider the issue in the context of other criminal penalties. I do not support the new clause. 
New clauses 11 and 12 deal with bridges. An existing offence covers the failure to comply with a mandatory height limit that is placed in advance on a low bridge. The penalty is a level 3 fine of a maximum of £1,000, or a discretionary disqualification and three penalty points. I note that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has included the phrase 
''without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration''
in the offence. However, it would be odd to attach a custodial penalty to such careless driving, when one does not apply elsewhere, at least not currently. 
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the frequency of bridge strikes. The Department is aware of that problem. There are some 2,000 bridge strikes a year by over-height vehicles on Network Rail bridges alone, and even more if one includes other bridges. The Department must consider that seriously. We have done some research; it is worrying that, despite the fact that drivers are encouraged to carry advisory documents and, since 1997, have been required to measure the load and height of their loaded vehicle for every trip and carry the figures in their cab, that does not appear to be working as well as it should. Sometimes it is because the load may not have been accurately measured, or because each journey is not sufficiently regulated and the height is not measured for each trip. There are clearly many factors affecting the load. In normal circumstances, that may make no difference at all, but when it is a matter of a few centimetres of clearance, it could mean the difference between good luck and disaster. The Department will continue to look at that: a committee is monitoring it and working with the industry to ensure that we consider the situation. A recent survey, completed but not yet published, demonstrates that much work must be done in that field. 
The only other issue that I ought to mention relates to advance barriers. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides a power 
''to place obstructions . . . to prohibit the passage of vehicles''
where such prohibitions have been imposed by the traffic regulation order. Many vulnerable bridges are already equipped with integral collision protection beams, which are designed to reduce the impact of any collision. We would not support the construction of height barriers over highways in advance of low bridges, because they could themselves cause significant damage and could be a hazard. However, we accept that much work must be done on bridge strikes, and a departmental committee is working on it. I am sure that, because of today's debate, we shall consider the matter even more closely.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and, as ever, for the sympathy, if not total support, of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. To pick up on his first point, I repeat what I said when I responded to the Secretary of State's announcement following the crash in Berkshire: we must not lose sight of the fact that our railways are extremely safe. Nobody should be discouraged, but that need not stop us trying to make them safer, and I am sure that that is the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman made his remarks. He asked why the punishment for jumping a red light on a level crossing should be greater than that for jumping any other red light. I shall not labour the point, but it could be argued that when someone is endangering an entire train and all the people on it, that is more serious than other circumstances. I fully accept that that is open to argument, and we will not go into that today.
I simply say to the Minister that I am grateful that she accepts that there is a lack of interface between the rail and traffic authorities, which is one of the problems that we all recognise. There is work to be done. She made a point, with which I concur, that if an organisation such as Network Rail feels so moved as to seek amendments, the matter is clearly troubling it and deserves to be considered. I am grateful that she did give that undertaking. 
Unfortunately, new clause 5 did not find favour with the Chairman, so I was unable to describe the problems of planning contained therein, but when the Minister discusses the issues with Network Rail will she include that item as well? With that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14 - SPEED LIMITS FOR VEHICLES OF CERTAIN CLASSES

'In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in section 5(2)(b)(iii), column (c) leave out ''40'' and insert ''50''.'. 
—[Mr. Chope] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause would raise the maximum speed for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads from 40 to 50 mph. 
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
On resuming—

Christopher Chope: I was saying that my new clause has to be looked at in the context of raising the maximum speed in ideal circumstances. At the moment, for lorries on single carriageways, that speed is deemed to be 40 mph. We know that lorries have become much safer, their braking has become more efficient, and the quality of many of our single carriageway roads, particularly trunk roads, has increased significantly.
In the past, it was possible to overtake lorries on single carriageway roads with relative ease, because the traffic was much lighter. Now, however, it is virtually impossible to overtake any vehicle at busy times on single carriageway trunk roads, and so all the traffic goes at the speed of the slowest. I have in mind, for example, the road between my constituency and Honiton, most of which is single carriageway. The result is that heavy goods vehicles often find themselves generating driver frustration—a fact recognised by the Minister in a letter he recently sent to Commercial Motor in response to its campaign to raise the limit to 50 mph. Tesco lorries now have a sign on the back saying ''This lorry is limited to 40 mph'', because so many motorists find that speed incredible, and sometimes vent their frustration on the driver. In times past, I suspect that some lorry drivers raised their speed above 40 mph in ideal circumstances, but now, with cameras and tachographs, they are unable to do so. As a result, driver frustration creates danger. 
I propose that the maximum speed in ideal circumstances for HGVs on single carriageway roads should be 50 mph rather than 40 mph, which would improve road safety rather than making it worse. That is the view of those in the commercial goods industry, and of many of those involved in driving HGVs.

David Kidney: I am sorry that I have missed the campaign by the organisation that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I have not heard before today the argument that driver frustration leads to danger. Is there any evidence of what that danger is, or is it anecdotal?

Christopher Chope: We do not have much time to go into the details, but I would pray in aid what the Minister himself said in his letter to Commercial Motor on 13 January 2005:
''Your article suggests that some car drivers may become irritated when they are following a slow moving HGV and I have no reason to believe that this is not the case.''
In fairness, he goes on to say that, human nature being what it is, he is not convinced that even if the speed limit were increased the same small minority of car drivers might not still want to overtake. That is where I part company with him. There is a lot of difference between driving behind an HGV mile on mile when it is travelling at only 40 mph and doing so when it is travelling at 50 mph. Also, overtaking a vehicle that is travelling at 50 mph is a significantly more dangerous manoeuvre than overtaking a vehicle that is travelling at 40 mph—for obvious reasons.

David Kidney: Just to be clear: is the danger that drivers will be irritated? The Bill is about saving lives  and preventing casualties on the roads, not about people being irritated.

Christopher Chope: There are signs—admittedly mainly on trunk roads—saying, ''Dual carriageway 3 miles ahead.'' Those signs are put up to try to ensure that drivers who are frustrated and do not know that length of road very well will hold themselves back, will not engage in a potentially dangerous overtaking manoeuvre and will wait for the dual carriageway. The issue of driver frustration and the reality of life on the roads is already recognised by the highway authorities. That is why we are deluding ourselves if we deny that there is such an issue as driver frustration. We delude ourselves if we think it is not a sensible way forward to try to reduce the amount of driver frustration and create safer roads as a result. Obviously, I would like a lot more dual carriageways and bypasses. We are already on record as having promised that and that is what we intend to get down to after 5 May.
In the meantime, however, we think that raising the HGV speed limit would make a contribution in this area. I am not saying that it is a panacea and that we will save hundreds of lives, but we will save some and we will certainly make the roads more efficient.

John Thurso: I begin by directly addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford. If he were to drive on the A9 south of Inverness, after the dual carriageway at Daviot, he would come across a large sign that says, ''Frustration kills. Allow overtaking.'' Indeed, if he were to speak to the chief constable of the Northern constabulary, he would find that frustration is one of the major concerns on our roads.
Raising the speed limit is a matter that I have raised in correspondence with the Minister. I have also corresponded with the chief constable. The view of both the Minister and the chief constable, as I understand it, is that the potential safety disbenefits of allowing an increase in the speed for HGVs are greater than the potential safety benefits. That is certainly a case and I have no doubt that the Minister will make it, but I would like to add a few comments on the other side of the argument. 
Funnily enough, the hon. Member for Christchurch made a point that I want to make: when the traffic is not too thick on the A9, the fact that a lorry is travelling at 40 mph makes it easier to get past. The problem is that, since the road was built—it is part dual carriageway and part high-grade non-dual—traffic levels have risen to the extent that there can be queues of up to half a mile. Part of the problem is that many of the visitors are not used to overtaking. We get lorries in a line astern and it is a question not of getting past one lorry, but of getting past a fleet. Many of the regular long-distance drivers, such as Stevens from Wick and Bannermans from Thame, know that and always leave a gap between their lorry and the one in front, for which I am always grateful. However, there are lorry drivers who do not leave that gap, and force one to try to overtake—where it is safe—two or more vehicles. When a queue builds up, it causes huge frustration, and eventually after driving for mile after mile through the beautiful highlands in a long queue  someone will lose patience and go for it, and that is when the potential for big accidents arises. 
The other side of the argument—the reason why I wrote to the Minister about the matter—is put by the haulage industry. In the far north there are a number of companies that regularly transport goods—particularly fish from the port of Scrabster, and many agricultural commodities from Easter Ross—down the A9. The A9 is a high-grade road. Having to travel at 40 mph rather than 50 mph limits the distance that the drivers of those vehicles can cover during the time available for them to drive, with the result that there are certain destinations that they would go to that they cannot reach in the legal driving time. They are therefore forced to stop overnight in the cab and to start again the following day. That has a number of consequences: it makes the produce less competitive, and causes the driver to spend time in rest periods that would not always be required. I am also told, although I have not seen substantial evidence for it, that the engines are less efficient at 40 mph than 50 mph, and that therefore the emissions are slightly greater. However, I do not stress that last point, as I have not seen it borne out. 
There is therefore an argument for increasing the speed limit to 50 mph on good roads. Part of the problem is that our A road categorisation system covers a huge variety of roads. They range from the easily identifiable very high-grade dual carriageways, such as that on the A9, which is extremely well built with barriers and where necessary underpasses for stock and pedestrians; to the high grade A9, which is a single carriageway but with good lane width and good width to the side of the road; to the 1970s model A9, which is somewhat narrower; to the 1950s part of the A9, which is narrower still. Other parts of my constituency have A roads that are single track with passing places. I invite members of the Committee to come and enjoy those any time that they would like a lovely holiday. 
 My point is that, as the A road categorisation covers a wide range of road types, there is an argument for recategorising our major roads, so that we can differentiate between roads built to a modern engineering standard, for which a limit of 50 mph might be appropriate, and roads built to an older standard, for which such a limit would be inappropriate.

David Jamieson: The new clause would increase the speed limit from 40 mph to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. However, it is phrased in such a way as to cover only rigid vehicles drawing one trailer, where the aggregate weight exceeds 7.5 tonnes. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch may have intended to cover all vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes.

Christopher Chope: If that is the only objection that the Minister has to my new clause, I am very relieved.

David Jamieson: Oh no, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not be as lucky as that this afternoon.
I acknowledge the importance of the transport industry to the UK economy. Moving goods around  rapidly is important, particularly with the ''just in time'' principle that many companies work on these days. I also accept that allowing vehicles to travel faster could improve some journey times in some cases. There are two questions: first, to what extent being able to travel at 50 mph rather than 40 mph would decrease journey times; and secondly, whether one can do so safely.

Greg Knight: Did the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 impose that speed limit, or was it a codifying piece of legislation, with the speed limit imposed at an earlier date? When were such vehicles subject to the 40 mph speed limit? What is the comparable speed limit for those vehicles in France and Germany?

David Jamieson: That is some extra technical information to get hold of before we complete. It may even be coming to me now. Right, it says, ''No, I don't know. Have to write.'' There we are. All the gathered intelligence in the Room cannot tell us, so I shall jot a note to the right hon. Gentleman.
The 40 mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageways exists for a purpose. Even with the technological advances in braking systems and tyres, heavy goods vehicles take longer to stop than cars travelling at the same speed. Whereas an HGV travelling at 40 mph could pull up in time to avoid hitting a car travelling at 60 mph which was stopping in an emergency, an HGV driver is unlikely to do so if his vehicle is travelling any faster. 
Even at the current 40 mph speed limit, the HGV accident involvement rate on single carriageway rural roads is 45 per cent. higher than for cars. If the HGV speed limit were to be increased, all the evidence points to the fact that it would result in more casualties. Notwithstanding the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which is perhaps atypical—I do not mean that unkindly—because it is a rural area and has few major roads, for most of the time and most of the journey, HGV drivers will be expected to be on major trunk roads or motorways, where they travel at a maximum of 60 mph. Usually, the single lane road would form the smallest part of the journey. We do not expect HGVs in general to travel long distances on minor roads, except in some circumstances in England and in parts of Wales and Scotland. 
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to safety and accident records. We looked at a sample of 632 overtaking accidents on single carriageway roads between 1999 and 2001 where the identity of the overtaken vehicle was known. Some 44 of those incidents, which is only 7 per cent., involved vehicles overtaking HGVs. By far the majority of overtaking casualties—43 per cent—involved vehicles overtaking cars. So the numbers are not large. 
I said in my letter that people might be irritated, and I stand by that, but if we are irritated it does not give us an excuse to do something that puts our life and other people's lives at risk. Attractive as the new clause may sound, in road safety terms I must ask the Committee to vote against the motion if it is put to a vote.

Christopher Chope: I certainly shall not push the matter to a vote, because the new clause does not go as far as I had intended, as the Minister realised. He quoted some statistics and promised to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire with some data, so with that information we may want to revisit the subject.
The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was the one that I had very much in mind when I drafted the new clause. If it had been possible to limit it to A roads, it would have probably overcome some of the Government's concerns. Again, if one limits it to A roads, however, one has a definitional problem, because some of them are of a much lower standard than others. 
Frankly, the Minister is not on to a good point about the stopping distances, because it is incumbent upon heavy goods vehicles to travel at a safe distance from the vehicle in front. That is what we expect them to do, although the way many of them travel on the motorways, it defies belief that they could ever stop in time. However, that is another story and we shall not get into that now. We have had a short and interesting debate, but time is pressing on. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15 - MOTORCYCLES IN BUS LANES

'All bus lanes when buses are moving in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles.'. —[Mr. Chope.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We had sort of curtain-raiser for the new clause last night at the all-party reception with the Motor Cycle Industry Association and other motor cycle groups. I was delighted that, when I drew the attention of those present to new clause 15, it received overwhelming support. It also enjoys the support of the Liberal Democrats, which is a bonus.

David Wilshire: All of them?

Christopher Chope: Well, certainly the two who were at that event. It would probably depend on the way the pendulum swings, so I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I am grateful for their support because in the Minister's peroration on the last debate, he said that, in road safety terms, he could not concede on this. Yet in road safety terms he must allow the new clause to go through. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing motorised two-wheelers to use bus lanes improves road safety. That is the clear finding of the Transport for London survey, which shows that there has been about a 20 per cent. reduction in accidents, despite an increase in the use of bus lanes when motor cycles have been allowed to use them.
I will say no more about the matter, as the case for doing what I suggest is overwhelming. There needs to be a national standard. Otherwise, it is very confusing if we leave it to each local authority—or within London, to each borough—to decide for itself. The  local authorities in Colchester and Peterborough have already done what I suggest, and people are thinking of doing it in Essex. If it is a good thing in some areas, why not in all areas? Surely, in the name of road safety, we should now make it a national standard.

John Thurso: We did, indeed, have the curtain-raiser for the new clause yesterday. I can confirm its provisions represent a long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment, for which we were happy to reiterate our support. The arguments have been put and there are many other important new clauses to get on to. One point that I would pick up on is that a number of local authorities have already gone ahead with this provision. Rather than wait for it to come in piecemeal, authority by authority, let us get on and do it nationally.

David Jamieson: A long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment is usually the time it takes to get from one doorstep to the next. Of course, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that could take a considerable period of time, whereas in my constituency it does not take long at all—although in my constituency we have abolished the Liberals, so we do not have the problem that we had there some years ago.
The purpose of designated bus lanes is to give priority to buses and other classes of traffic. The more that other motorised vehicles have a statutory right to use them, the more their purpose can become devalued. However, I am very sympathetic to the principle of improving facilities for motor cyclists, including their use of bus lanes. Some local authorities have allowed motor cyclists to use bus lanes, and the Secretary of State has permitted motor cycles and licensed taxis to use the M4 bus lane. That was a sensible and welcome move. However, there are concerns for the safety of other road users, in particular cyclists and pedestrians. We are awaiting the results of trials allowing motor cycles into bus lanes in London and Swindon before revising the guidance, which recommends that motor cycles are not normally allowed to use bus lanes. I understand that Transport for London has extended its trial by 18 months, as it wants more evidence before it makes it a permanent feature. 
I was at the all-party reception last night, and I saw a flash of inspiration come over the hon. Member for Christchurch because he thought that in allowing motor cycles into bus lanes he had found a Tory policy that was actually popular. What he did not tell us, however, was that generally the Conservatives are opposed to bus lanes. If it were not for Labour Members, there would not be any bus lanes for the motor cycles to use. Some time in this debate, I would be interested to hear—

Peter Pike: Order. The Minister must keep to the new clause.

David Jamieson: I am sorry, Mr. Pike. I was responding to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
In Birmingham, for example, where one bus lane has been taken out for a good reason, I am told that the Tory local authority has no intention of putting it  back. There will be no motor cycles in that lane. We must take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said last night. I hope that the motor cycle fraternity will bear it in mind, as they cast their votes for the new, popular Tory policy, that the Tories may be in favour of motor cycles in bus lanes, but they are not in favour of bus lanes.

Christopher Chope: The Minister recognises a popular policy, albeit not that new, but it has nothing to do with the number of bus lanes. We are saying that wherever there is a bus lane, powered two-wheelers should be able to use it. I believe in local democracy, and although I think that it is important to have a national standard and that wherever there is a bus lane it should be used by powered two-wheelers, I would wish to continue to allow individual elected local authorities to decide where there should be bus lanes.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is telling us that democratically elected local authorities should be able to take a decision, but that is precisely the situation now: local authorities can take a decision on whether motor cycles go in bus lanes.

Christopher Chope: That is a completely different proposition from whether there should be a bus lane in a particular locality. When the Minister has time to reflect on this matter, he will realise that it is desirable to have national laws that are applicable nationally, so that motor cyclists, wherever they are in the country, can be confident that when they see a bus lane, they can use it, in accordance with the law. Obviously, there will be bus lanes only where elected local authorities choose to place them, except for those that are the responsibility of the Department, the Highways Agency or the other Administrations.
I am glad that the Minister accepts the strength of our argument. He says that TfL plans to extend the experiment for another 18 months or so, but the evidence already produced, if it is analysed properly, shows overwhelmingly that lives would be saved if the proposal were accepted now, and I therefore want to test the Committee's view. 
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Chope, Mr. ChristopherKnight, Mr. GregThurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. DavidYounger-Ross, Richard
NOES
Atkins, CharlotteHeyes, Mr. DavidJamieson, Mr. DavidKidney, Mr. David
Mahmood, Mr. KhalidMerron, GillianStinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 19 - Amendment of Road Traffic ch3Act 1988

'The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) is further amended, by inserting after section 80 (approval marks) 
''80A Retro-reflective markings 
The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape complying with ECE 104 to international category vehicles N2 and N3 and on goods trailers under the international classification 03 and 04 newly registered in the UK''.'.—[John Thurso.] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

John Thurso: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to make provision for retro-reflective markings in primary legislation. I should declare an interest, in that I am patron of an organisation called Reflect, which brought the matter to my attention. International standard ECE 104 requires that retro-reflective tape—tape that can be seen from the side of, and from behind, the vehicle—is fitted to heavy goods vehicles, as it makes them easier to see and therefore less likely to be involved in an accident. 
I understand that it is possible through existing secondary legislation to make such tape a requirement. I tabled a new clause because I believe that there is some resistance in the Government to doing that. The view is that Europe should adopt ECE 104 and that it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally. However, one EU country, Italy, has already implemented the legislation and has not been subject to any action by the Commission. If Italy can do it, we can do it. 
 It has been said that not all vehicles can be fitted with the tape, but the number of those that cannot is minuscule. I am sure that regulations could be made in such a way that that could be dealt with. Obviously, the Government's position is that ECE 104 should be made mandatory throughout Europe—certainly that would be the best way forward—but I do not understand why we should wait for that to happen before we implement it. 
For members of the Committee who are interested in the full details, there was an excellent debate in Westminster Hall. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) powerfully set out the case in a debate on 30 March 2004, at column 381WH of Hansard. Because of the time limit, I shall not go into detail, other than to ask Members to bear it in mind that HGVs represent approximately 1.4 per cent. of the traffic on our roads, yet are involved in 15.5 per cent. of accidents. It is interesting to note that the occupants of HGVs represent 8 per cent. of the total casualties on our roads, whereas occupants of vehicles that collide with HGVs account for 26 per cent. Clearly, the danger is to those who fail to see and who collide with an HGV, rather than those who are in the HGV. 
Since the matter was first discussed in 1998, when a cost-benefit analysis was done, there has been considerable movement. Loughborough is examining the evidence. I understand that the time required to fit the tape is now 90 minutes, not four hours, as was stated in 1998. That brings the cost down, and the cost of the tape itself has come down.

Greg Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm who in Loughborough is looking at this? He just said ''Loughborough''.

John Thurso: I was trying to paraphrase to keep the discussion short. The Department has commissioned Loughborough university to update a cost-benefit analysis of making ECE 104 mandatory. Furthermore, publication of that analysis is expected in February 2005. However, we know that the cost of the tape has gone down, as has the time taken to put the tape on, while the estimated cost of road deaths has gone up, so the cost-benefit ratio is clearly improving. There is a strong case for ECE 104 becoming mandatory. It is a simple, relatively cheap measure that would save some lives on our roads. I commend it to the Government and hope that the Minister will consider it sympathetically.

David Jamieson: I fully understand and share the hon. Gentleman's interest in the use of retro-reflective tape. I note that he read the account of the Adjournment debate in which I responded to the right hon. Member for Bracknell. On the new clause, however, my bewigged lawyers inform me that we do not need primary legislation to make the alteration, but only a statutory instrument to amend section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Earlier research conducted on behalf of the Department showed the potential for the wider fitment of reflective tape to reduce accidents by increasing conspicuity. It also highlighted the disproportionate cost. That work is now several years old, and the Department is reviewing the benefits and costs of mandating the use of that material on goods vehicles, trailers and large passenger-carrying vehicles. The research project is nearing completion and the results will be made public, in accordance with our commitment to open government. It would be unwise to do anything where the benefits were outweighed by the costs of introduction, so we will await the results of the report. 
For completeness, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire asked who in Loughborough examined the evidence, I note that it was the university's ergonomics and safety research institute. Its new buildings were opened recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), carrying out excellent constituency work.

David Kidney: I should mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is also a patron of Reflect. I am sympathetic to that the new clause. It clearly would be sensible if this were a mandatory EU-level requirement, because the lorries travel across the continent. Are our Government pursuing that matter in any negotiation? Would it be sensible to introduce the measure in two stages, with brand-new vehicles having to have them fitted before they could be on the road, which would reduce the costs further?

David Jamieson: Yes, there would be great sense in that. I understand that the matter has not been subject to wider discussion in the European context, but it would seem sensible to move to unanimity in Europe if we decide that the measure is good for the UK, as there are large numbers of foreign vehicles on our  roads. I am deeply sympathetic to the proposal, but I want to see the research, which will be ready shortly. Should we decide, on the basis of that research, that this is the way forward, we can lay a statutory instrument before the House, which would involve a much simpler process. I want the Committee to wait for that report, and I ask it to resist the new clause.

John Thurso: I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I hope that we consider the matter again at another stage, but in light of the fact that we will probably get that evidence this month, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20 - Amendment of traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002

'(1) The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S1/2002/3113) are amended as follows. 
(2) In paragraph 4, after the definition of ''excursion or tour'', there is inserted— 
''fixed speed camera'' means a camera of a type approved by the Secretary of State that is situated at a fixed site and that operates continuously or from time to time for the purpose of monitoring the speed of road vehicles and securing compliance with the speed limit in force at that site. 
(3) After paragraph 58 there is inserted—''59. E 
 ''59 very fixed speed camera shall— 
(a) be adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness and 
(b) have affixed to it a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit.''.'.—[Mr. Chope] 
Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is important, because it would ensure that what the Government say is happening did happen, because people could not be convicted of speeding offences detected by cameras that did not comply with the Government's rules on conspicuity and visibility. It goes further, reflecting the concerns of many people that it would be much easier if the cameras identified the prevailing speed limit, the enforcement of which they were supposed to ensure. They would also have to be illuminated. 
As one goes into the village of Chideock on the A35, there is a speed camera positioned shortly after the 40 mph limit goes down to 30 mph, but there is no street lighting. That camera is not illuminated, and because of its angle and the fact that the road is on a steep, downhill slope, it is almost invisible to motorists going along that road. It is not surprising that it has caught out an enormous number of motorists, particularly in the early hours of the morning when traffic is light. If that speed camera were illuminated, the situation would be better because its presence would be apparent, so people would reduce their speed instead of going in excess of the speed limit at that location. 
A number of people have written to me over the years about the problems of the lack of conspicuity of speed cameras. I have a typical letter here from a Conservative supporter in Liverpool, expressing exasperation at the fact that on a stretch of dual  carriageway the speed limit drops from 50 to 40 mph and 130 m later there is a speed camera opposite an adjoining slip road, followed approximately 200 m later by a short, sharp slope to a hidden roundabout. There are no warning signs referring to the roundabout or to the fact that it is hidden. The gentleman received a reply from the Lancashire partnership for road safety saying that it does not have any money to put up junction warning signs. That is deplorable. 
I have another letter from someone in Weymouth—another area that will soon be represented by a Conservative Member of Parliament—who made a complaint to the safety camera partnership after witnessing a child being brought off their cycle when a motorist braked unnecessarily and suddenly on catching sight of a speed camera. The camera did not meet the visibility rules as set out in the Government press release released in December 2001. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to be crying ''foul'' from a sedentary position, but as a result of that sudden braking due to the fact that the speed camera is not visible until the last minute, a motorist knocked a person off their cycle. That accident could have been avoided if the camera had been more conspicuous. We could continue with a host of other examples. 
The Government's own guidelines make it clear that there should be conspicuity and high visibility of cameras, but the problem with those guidelines is that the booklet in which they appear, in which the word ''must'' appears an enormous amount, states at the beginning: 
''Compliance with these rules has no bearing on the enforcement of offences detected by the use of safety cameras. Non-compliance with these rules and guidelines by a partnership, or a representative of a partnership, does not provide any mitigation of, or defence for, an alleged offence under current UK law committed by a driver or a registered keeper.''
They are absolutely useless in providing a defence for motorists who are caught out by speed cameras that have not been set up in accordance with the Government's guidelines. My new clause would put that right.

Richard Younger-Ross: Briefly, I have some sympathy with the new clause. I do not think that it goes far enough, but I ask the Minister to consider whether being able to see a camera will reduce speed, which is what the cameras are intended to do. I mentioned earlier that specific signs should be there to warn that there is a camera ahead.
On the question of visibility, where there is a change in speed, there is often a speed safety camera to catch people as they go from a 70 to a 40 mph speed limit. As the Minister will be aware, that happens on the A30 coming into Exeter. In all those cases, the changes should be clearly marked well in advance. I urge the Minister to consider a system where we step reductions to ensure that changes in speed limits are more clearly indicated.

Greg Knight: When debated speed camera detection devices a few days ago, the essence of the Minister's desire for them to be outlawed was that they inform the motorist which cameras are live. However, he went on to confirm that it was Government policy for cameras to be clearly visible and not hidden. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the guidance that has been issued. The essence of the new clause is to ensure that cameras are clearly visible and not hidden, with the bonus that the camera would also have to display the applicable speed limit, so that the motorist would be in no doubt. The new clause seems reasonable and completely in accordance with the Minister's policy. I therefore hope that he will accept it.

David Wilshire: There are two separate issues and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about both.
I want to focus first on putting the speed on cameras. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that warning signs will always be put up ahead of cameras and that routinely some distance ahead the speed limit will be indicated. Well, that is true in some cases but not in others. My research into the subject is as a motorist and not particularly scientific, but I have noticed that on roads with a speed limit other than the national speed limit—that is, 20, 30, 40 or 50 mph—I am told what the speed limit in advance of police warning signs and enforcement cameras. However, I think that I have persuaded myself that when I am on the open road, to use a good old-fashioned phrase, and the national speed limit of 60 mph applies, I am not warned of it in advance of a camera. The same appears to be the case on dual carriageways and motorways. 
The Minister and the hon. Member for Teignbridge probably know the A303 better than I do, but I have reason to travel on it regularly these days. My experience is that there are cameras in a couple of places where the speed limit is 60 mph, but there is no way of knowing that other than by remembering what the national limit is. 
There have been numerous occasions on which I have been minding my own business, aware of the speed limit, but all of a sudden somebody has seen a camera in front, assumed that the speed limit was 40 or 50 mph and that they had not noticed a warning sign, and whacked their brakes on, forcing a string of traffic behind them instantly to do the same thing. Therefore, if the Minister says that it is wrong to put the speed on the camera, he ought to say that he will return with a proposal for signs ahead of cameras that indicate the speed limit. 
I understand why the cameras are there and I do not argue with that. However, both the sites that I have in mind are dangerous places to apply brakes. One is on a steep hill, where there is an overtaking lane going up the hill but not one going down. One is invited to overtake lorries, and many do so, but as they overtake they see the camera and slow down to 40 mph. That is dangerous for people who come up behind and are caught unawares. The sensible answer  would therefore be to put the speed on the back of the camera. 
I will finish my remarks as I am conscious of the time and the fact that the Minister needs a chance to reply. I could talk about illumination, but I will leave the Minister to comment on that.

David Jamieson: One of the lasting testimonies to the period that the hon. Member for Christchurch spent as a Minister with responsibility for transport is the introduction of speed cameras. However, he did not introduce any rules regarding the conspicuity of those cameras. In fact, he predicted that the cameras would catch 2 million people a year with no conspicuity rules in place. It was this Government who introduced those rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who was the Minister responsible for such matters at the time, insisted that cameras be conspicuous by making them yellow, which is why they are often called ''Spellar yellow''. The hon. Gentleman introduced cameras with no conspicuity rules, and now he is telling us that we are not doing enough.
The hon. Gentleman always tells us that there is too much red tape and unnecessary regulation and procedure, and yet he wants to regulate the camera partnerships to the extent that they would be too costly to run. The new clause says that a camera should be 
''adequately illuminated during the hours of darkness'',
and 
''have affixed to it a clearly visible indication of the applicable speed limit''.
Illumination in the hours of darkness would incur considerable cost, as would all the regulation that goes with it. He claims to be the great deregulator, yet here he is, telling us that we need more regulations. 
The hon. Gentleman stumped up some examples. I do not know who provided them for him, but if it was one of his researchers, he ought to sack him. I was delighted to hear that there was one Tory in Liverpool; I have not bumped into him yet, but I dare say one day I will. 
The hon. Gentleman went on to describe someone driving along a road at enough of a speed that he braked when he saw the camera. He must have lost control of the vehicle, because he did not brake in a straight line, and then hit a cyclist. For goodness' sake, what speed was the motorist doing? He must have been well over the speed limit if a cyclist was allowed on that road. Does he expect us to have sympathy with that motorist? I certainly do not. I think that such motorists are outrageous, and are breaking the law. I hope that the camera caught him.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson: Yes, I would like to know the hon. Gentleman's defence.

Christopher Chope: I am asking the Committee to have sympathy not for the motorist but for the cyclist.

David Jamieson: I have sympathy with the cyclist, and I say that cameras will catch people who speed  unnecessarily. That is why we have camera partnerships.
There are still some cameras from the hon. Gentleman's ministerial regime that do not need to be conspicuous or signed. However, I challenge him again to say whether he knows of any cameras under our partnership scheme, falling under our new ruling about conspicuity, that are not properly signed. If he knows any, will he let us know? I would certainly look into it. That challenge is now 14 months old. As yet, he has come up with zero out of 4,500 to 5,000 cameras; I have not any brought before me. The new clause would introduce too much red tape, it is totally unnecessary, and I ask the Committee to resist it.

Christopher Chope: Well, it is rich indeed for the Minister to talk about too much red tape as a defence against this reasonable new clause. I am not embarrassed about having introduced the legislation that enables us to have enforcement cameras. As I have said, they are most successful at traffic lights, where there is no requirement for conspicuity, because there could be no possible excuse or mitigation for anyone going through a red light. The Minister's Government have amended the legislation and there are an increasing number of cameras, making them not so much speed cameras as ''greed cameras''. If they are meant to identify accident blackspots, it is important that they be illuminated. What possible reason can there be for not illuminating them? That is the point made in the new clause.
There is no point commanding the safety camera partnerships to comply with the conspicuity and signing rules laid down by the Government without having a sanction. If the sanction proposed in the new clause were accepted, there would be no cases of non-compliance, because the camera safety partnerships would realise that they would be unable to get any convictions.

David Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is such a good idea, why did he not introduce it?

Christopher Chope: The Minister asks why, if I think conspicuity rules are such a good idea, I did not introduce them. I had not realised that it would be necessary to introduce them, because I assumed that common sense would dictate that those cameras would be properly illuminated. My feeling was that the highways authorities would behave responsibly and sensibly, but I am afraid that that has not been the case in practice a number of times. They have not behaved sensibly because they are unduly motivated by greed and the incentive that the Government have given them under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001.

Greg Knight: If one is fair to the Minister, one could say that he has given the Committee a small reason—the cost—why paragraph (a) should not be accepted, but does my hon. Friend agree that he has given no reason whatever why paragraph (b) should not be implemented? The cameras need to be regularly maintained; surely it will be of minimal cost to fix a speed limit sign on the back so that motorists are clearly aware of the speed at which they should be travelling.

Christopher Chope: I do not concede that the Minister has dealt with the first paragraph; he has certainly made no attempt to answer the second. The issue is generating an enormous amount of angst among the motoring public. If we were to pass the new clause, the Committee would send out a clear message that, whatever parts of the Government think, we do not want to continue the war against the motorist.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Chope, Mr. ChristopherKnight, Mr. Greg
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Atkins, CharlotteByrne, Mr. LiamJamieson, Mr. DavidKidney, Mr. DavidMahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, GillianStinchcombe, Mr. PaulThurso, JohnYounger-Ross, Richard
Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. We are not allowed to say anything in this Committee beyond half-past 5 because of the strictures of the programme motion. However, before half-past 5, on behalf of the Opposition—and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of the Committee—may I thank you and your colleague, Mr. Hughes, for the way in which you have deliberated over our proceedings? Through your lightness of touch, we have been able to consider most of the issues in a most effective way.
I would also like to thank the usual people who are never normally praised in public. I would like to praise the police, the Hansard reporters, the Badge Messengers and other members of the Committee. I am very grateful to the Minister. He had a short nap  this afternoon, but he was entitled to it; his colleague was speaking at the time. 
I should also like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who has been gaining a lot more experience since her days in Wandsworth, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and others whose participation has made this an enjoyable and productive Committee.

David Jamieson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I associate myself totally with those remarks and thank you and Mr. Hughes for having presided over us with such care and diligence. I thank my colleagues and my fellow Minister for their support, and those on the Opposition Benches for their good work. I appreciate that it is often more difficult to be in opposition when considering Bills, because Opposition Members do not have an army of people telling them that one will have to write to Members because they do not have the answer. I also thank the officials and all those from the House authorities, who have worked extremely hard, for their contribution to this Bill, which has, largely, inspired consensus among the parties.
It being half-past Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [20 January 2005], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
Amendment made: No. 51, in title, line 2, leave out 'motorway' and insert 'trunk road'.—[Mr. Jamieson.] 
Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at half-past Five o'clock.